Second hostage killed

[bluelupis]

Just got a CNN news flash saying the second American kidnapped hostage was killed.

[Duemellon]

I'm numbed by all this.

Everytime a hostage dies I'm remindd of why we are in there, & then remindd that I ask myself why did we go in there for this?

So my reaction is not outrage anymore. It's just a fact in the balance of this conflict. Neithr bad, nor good, b/c to pick one that is worse is to lose sight of the ridiculousness of it all.

[Wondertastic]

the classic absurdity of war.

[noonan]

These poor souls are dead the moment they are kidnapped. It shouldn't be a shock when a body is found or a video ends up on a website. I wish there was some way to keep the images of these hooded defects of humanity out of the media. Report the deaths, sure, but by flashing the images around the world we are giving them exactly what they want.

[weezer6]

correct. terrorists count on the media, and the media never lets them down.

[matt]

"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Armstrong's death "shows you the nature of the people we are dealing with." "They are murderers, terrorists who don't want to see the Iraqi people live in peace and freedom and don't want to see their country rebuilt on a democratic base," Powell said."

What about Bin Laden? What happened there?

These outright murders in the name of Allah just sicken me. You're right that it is numbing each time, but it should not get to the point where these murders become passe and expected.


It infuriates me more and more each time something like this happens because so many people continue to blindly support the continuation of this war and the Bush/Blair agenda. There is no end to this conflict in sight, they refuse to listen to the popular domestic and global voices of reason, and they continue to alienate the United States from the rest of the world community. If Kofi Annan beleives so strongly that the war in Iraq is illegal, then he damn well needs to show a spine and take action against the United States, Brittain and all of the other participants in the "coallition of the willing" or else he is no better than those who continue to turn a blind eye. It seems that nobody has balls enough to look past their own interests take a stand against this outrageousness.

[classicgrrl]

one question I have to ask is why are US companies allowing US workers to be there to begin with?







oh wait.....PROFIT.

[ianalex20]

Originally posted by classicgrrl
one question I have to ask is why are US companies allowing US workers to be there to begin with?







oh wait.....PROFIT.


They volunteered to go for the paycheck!

[matt]

And you post here for attention.

[akip]

if i was one of those guys, waiting to get my head sawed off, i'd be wishing it was wolfowitz instead of me.

[DLDude]

Ya know honestly, the fact that we make such a big deal about the hostages is why the terrorists are winning. We've got all these yellow flags, and gigantic prayer parties for these people, so when they are killed, it's a huge blow to us. Obviously this is what the terrorists want! Yeah it's sad and all, but it's war, why play into their games?

[Homsar]

Yeah, major question I always think about when thinking about US sending troops into other countries: If the situation in that country was so bad, was so hated by the people of that country, why didn't those people do something about it? Sure there are dictators out there who do horrible things, and you people may think I'm callous for saying this, but if the oppressed people really cared about it, you'd think they'd do somehting about it themselves. I know they could be afraid, but MAYBE, oh I don't know, Iraqi civilians could have easily taken out Sadaam whenever they had the chance??? Can't there be "bombers with good intentions" who like to blow up EVIL people? Why do we never hear about the bombings of headquarters of suspected terrorists or dictators? Do we have to LET them attack first? Or does taking them out make US the terrorists?

If I'm missing anything, please tell me. I'm just seeing if these questions have anawers.

-Hommy

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by DLDude
Ya know honestly, the fact that we make such a big deal about the hostages is why the terrorists are winning. We've got all these yellow flags, and gigantic prayer parties for these people, so when they are killed, it's a huge blow to us. Obviously this is what the terrorists want! Yeah it's sad and all, but it's war, why play into their games?

This is why Bush has a very good chance of being re-elected.....the compassionate voter. :rolleyes:

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Homsar
Yeah, major question I always think about when thinking about US sending troops into other countries: If the situation in that country was so bad, was so hated by the people of that country, why didn't those people do something about it? Sure there are dictators out there who do horrible things, and you people may think I'm callous for saying this, but if the oppressed people really cared about it, you'd think they'd do somehting about it themselves. I know they could be afraid, but MAYBE, oh I don't know, Iraqi civilians could have easily taken out Sadaam whenever they had the chance??? Can't there be "bombers with good intentions" who like to blow up EVIL people? Why do we never hear about the bombings of headquarters of suspected terrorists or dictators? Do we have to LET them attack first? Or does taking them out make US the terrorists?

After the first Gulf War, conscripted Iraqi soldiers retreating back to the cities could've definitely overthrown Suddam. At that time the U.S. wanted him to remain in power, so they slaughtered the retreating soldiers.

Usually, the U.S. is supporting the evil people.

[markalot]

Originally posted by yoshomon


After the first Gulf War, conscripted Iraqi soldiers retreating back to the cities could've definitely overthrown Suddam. At that time the U.S. wanted him to remain in power, so they slaughtered the retreating soldiers.

Usually, the U.S. is supporting the evil people.

Fact check please. Who slaughtered who?

[the-dude]

This is a tough issue IMO. I do think the terrorists weapon of choice is the media. Does that mean we shouldnt care when somebody is kidnapped and killed? I dont think so.

But what it does is it brings home to us how tragic death is. The media (pre vietnam) used to just list a casualty number, and people can usually deal with hearing "100 dead today in the southern province..." more than watching images of even just one person being executed. During Nam the media started showing the world what war looked like. How traumatic a battle could be. This video journalism was one of the major catalysts which helped the anti-war movement gain momentum. Much like the Selma videos helped with civil rights progress.

[The part you bash me for]
I personally think these kidnapping videos are a good for us in one sense ONLY, they remind us that we have family members dying on both sides, so we dont look at wartime casualties as statistics, but as lives lost. Wartime sould require the informed consent of the public, and if the public understands that there is a cost in human life, then they can better decide if we should continue. If the decision is still to fight on, so be it. At least we arent acting like its a clean and easy situation.
[/The part you bash me for]

Oh man, you all are gonna tear me a new one on this, i can see it coming! :)

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by markalot
Fact check please. Who slaughtered who? the Iraqi soldiers who did most fighting in GW1 were no the republican guard. When they were retreatin it was known that the US military harrassed them durin their retreat.

then, after GW1, not only was Sadam's low-level troops so upset they could'v revolted, the Kurds (northern province) DID revolt...

in other words.. that whole bit about "If the Iraqis didn't like Saddam so much, why didn't they take him out themselves!?" is a stupid & small minded statement. They tried, we didn't support, but only encouraged them, they died, they resent that we said "go for it".

so...

[matt]

Originally posted by the-dude

[The part you bash me for]
I personally think these kidnapping videos are a good for us in one sense ONLY, they remind us that we have family members dying on both sides, so we dont look at wartime casualties as statistics, but as lives lost. Wartime sould require the informed consent of the public, and if the public understands that there is a cost in human life, then they can better decide if we should continue. If the decision is still to fight on, so be it. At least we arent acting like its a clean and easy situation.
[/The part you bash me for]

Oh man, you all are gonna tear me a new one on this, i can see it coming! :) I don't disagree at all. These videos show us what our government does not want us to see - the war dead. The terrorists know this and are trying to use it for maximum impact. If they could videotape the death of every single serviceman/woman killed in Iraq, they would and they would broadcast it to the world.

[noonan]

You can't lump this with combat deaths. These are kidnappings and videotaped murders with the expressed purpose of advertising the kidnappers and murderers personally. It is news. It needs to be covered, but when we breathlessly splash photos and videos of these cloaked cockroaches across the planet we are giving them a payoff that ensures this kind of thing will continue.

[Duemellon]

The US govnt wants us to see these, but not the war dead. Notice the difference.

War dead = ppl who's death r more forgiveabl b/c they were in combat, intentionally

Civ dead = demonstrates the brutality of the enemy

Why don't we see pix of dead Iraqi civs? Or the wounded soldiers on either side? Why do we focus more on the 24+ dead hostages than 1,000 dead of our own troops in the day-to-day news?

[matt]

noonan - I will disagree with that for a couple of reasons. First, I didn't refer to them as "combat" deaths. I referred to them as "war" deaths. You don't have to be in combat or in the military to take part part in and be a casualty of an ongoing war.

Second, The civillian contractors would not be there if Saddam Hussein was still in power. He is not in power because George Bush insisted on removing him. Bush's removal of Saddam and the subsequent "liberation" of Iraq opened up financial opportunities for non-Iraqi firms (read: civilian contractors) to help "rebuild" it's infrastructure. These civillian contractors are there as employees of these firms, as an indirect result of Bush's actions. Don't take me the wrong way, I'm glad Saddam's no longer in power, for better or worse. But Bush took this war to Iraq, Saddam didn't bring it to us. We are on foreign soil fighting a questionable war with an unconventional enemy. This war is far from over and the Bush administration and the terrorists we are now fighting in Iraq know this.

[stevelargent]

Originally posted by Homsar
Yeah, major question I always think about when thinking about US sending troops into other countries: If the situation in that country was so bad, was so hated by the people of that country, why didn't those people do something about it? Sure there are dictators out there who do horrible things, and you people may think I'm callous for saying this, but if the oppressed people really cared about it, you'd think they'd do somehting about it themselves. I know they could be afraid, but MAYBE, oh I don't know, Iraqi civilians could have easily taken out Sadaam whenever they had the chance??? Can't there be "bombers with good intentions" who like to blow up EVIL people? Why do we never hear about the bombings of headquarters of suspected terrorists or dictators? Do we have to LET them attack first? Or does taking them out make US the terrorists?

If I'm missing anything, please tell me. I'm just seeing if these questions have anawers.


I-Hommy

I think that all these people feel they are killing "evil" people--just maybe not your idea of "evil."

[the-dude]

Originally posted by Duemellon
The US govnt wants us to see these, but not the war dead. Notice the difference.

War dead = ppl who's death r more forgiveabl b/c they were in combat, intentionally

Civ dead = demonstrates the brutality of the enemy

Why don't we see pix of dead Iraqi civs? Or the wounded soldiers on either side? Why do we focus more on the 24+ dead hostages than 1,000 dead of our own troops in the day-to-day news?
Due, Honestly, my original post was longer before I trimmed it down, and basically the part I removed said this exact thing. If you watch BBC or CBC news (which I often do) you will see the combat and dead and injured troops (and civilians). They dont show it as much on our news.

Edited to remove ambiguity.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by the-dude
Due, Honestly, my original post was longer, and basically said this exact thing. If you watch BBC or CBC news (which I often do) you will see the combat and dead and injured troops (and civilians). They dont show it as much on our news. but, b/c u said it, & i didn't yet, u r wrong, I am right.

Either say I'm right or I'll start flamin u for the moron u r for disagreeing! After all, am "and King" also known as co-awesomeness, & u r... wha? what again?

I'm more right than YOU!!!!! Just tryin to live up to what was said about me. yah, I read what u said, just sayin it again

[the-dude]

:)

[keyst2891]

I really am confused and I just don't know what to think about this war...

I'm torn, I don't want to see us keep prolonging this hell and yet isn't that what we all wanted after 9/11, for us to go over there and take on these countries that housed terrorists so they didn't get us first???

Bush's goal is to fight terrorism... right? Well, if there are no terrorist ties in Iraq and this war was pointless, HOW COME EVERY NIGHT TERRORISTS ARE ATTACKING?!

I don't buy the argument that these terrorists are only terrorists because we're there. If we leave, would they not be terrorists anymore? We are over there to fight terrorists, therefore terrorism should not be the reason we get out of the Middle East.

I understand completely those of us who feel that our sacrifices are futile and nothing will ever change. I guess I'm just hoping to God that the decisions made by our country and the lives that have been lost will have the results that we all wanted on 9/11.

This war is just hell... Everyday you see innocent Iraqi men, women and children being slaughtered by terrorists and misguided US military fire. But.... We are fighting terrorism and that is good...... right????

Damn, there is no solution... Fighting terrorism = Increase in Terrorism.... Doing nothing = Vulnerability to Terrorism....

I just pray that this does not grow to something that none of us want to see.

[hp1]

http://atlanta.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/1/large/dead_kids.jpg

Here's some civilian dead and wounded. Was this done by evil enemies as well? Hypocrasy is rampet.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by keyst2891
HOW COME EVERY NIGHT TERRORISTS ARE ATTACKING?!

I don't buy the argument that these terrorists are only terrorists because we're there.Before we were there there were not any terrorist attacks in Iraq unless you want to include the Kurdish battles from the North who we are sympathetic towards so we label their efforts as "defensive" or "revolutionary" not terroristic.

From the basic stance of that statement that, before we were there no terrorists attacked, then it's clear there is a relation to our presence & their presence. If u want to argue that the terrorists were there but had to travel out of Iraq to do their terrorist acts, please note that none of the terrorists involved in any terrorist tragedies against the US abroad or at home were ever done by an Iraqi national.

None.

So therefore, if no Iraqi nationals are attacking the US through terrorist means, & when we get into Iraq the terrorists pop up, could one conclude that these new terrorists (who are only attacking targets w/i Iraq) are a creation or reaction to our presence there?

I'm asking... really.If we leave, would they not be terrorists anymore? We are over there to fight terrorists, therefore terrorism should not be the reason we get out of the Middle East.U r correct, if we leave they will still b terrorist-minded & seek to undermine genuine efforts at centralized & popular govnt thru violence & intimidation. However, as what I do believe is the answer from the question I posed before this, we did create the terrorists from our presence there & our mishandlin of the post-invasion Iraq. If we leave now the amount of terrorists bein created would drop if we handled our extraction plan responsibly.I guess I'm just hoping to God that the decisions made by our country and the lives that have been lost will have the results that we all wanted on 9/11. it appears to me, according to what you hav stated:

- that u r aware that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

- after researchin to determine if my claim that there hav never been Iraqi national terrorists (particularly involved in 9/11)

that there is no logical reason to invade Iraq, especially since terrorists & WMDs were not present there. If 9/11 is what we'r tryin to prevent, our presence in Iraq appears quite misplaced considering those facts.Damn, there is no solution... Fighting terrorism = Increase in Terrorism.... Doing nothing = Vulnerability to Terrorism....& I agree...

We hav 2 belief systems in gainin support for a war that r completely compatibl to create a perpetual war.

skip to the other colored text for the closing statement, all the stuff between is just further elucidation that isn't necessary to read

Terrorism
Recruits ppl who perceive they r oppressed or without hope. When the situation gets more desperate or closer to unbearable, more ppl look towards this demonstration of protest in an attempt to change the mind of the perceived oppressor

John Brown, Crispus Attuks, Malcolm X (pre-el Hajj), Mao, and others, embody this abiilty to inspire others who feel oppressed. The greater the oppression, the easier it is to recruit.

Military Attrition
Gains support by facing off against an opponent by removing their resources, territories, & supporters, either thru coercive force (jailin, sanctions, military presence), strategic/tactical elminations, & exclusion. The school of thought behind this approach is the basis for wars from WW1 & 2, where the intial goal was to inhibit the enemy's ability to fight by removin men, supplies, & support, thru strategic strikes against high-value targets and gainin direct & indirect support from everywhere else.

The way they feed into each other is that...
When u remove the resources for terrorists to use, they become more poor, more hungry, more oppressed. It's in the nature of doin such. When a community feels more oppressed, they are more likely to "revolt" or "protest" (which is what the terrorists perceive they r doin).

How do u stop this cycle?

Don't get in it...
Or, if u find urself in it... get out of it.

How do u get out of it?
Stop adding oppression thru heavy-handed military tactics & start givin them a voice, resources, stability, & hope. Undercut the terrorists' message by providin their would-b-recruits with opportunity. U can't do that at the end of a gun, & can't do it by crackin down on all of them tellin them that this oppression is better for them.

The idea that well find a way to kill every terrorist isa confused statement that ignores the means of attrition creates terrorists.